Monday, April 30, 2012

The anti-bullying campaign, intended to affirm homosexuals who feel marginalised by society, now has a leader who excels in bullying.

Dan Savage is a homosexual man who makes his living by bullying those who don't agree with him. He is the man behind the theft of Rick Santorum's website, making the word santorum come up on google as a horrible sexual definition. He threatened to do the same with the name Rick, warning Santorum that if he continued with his comments, he (Dan) would mangle his first name as well.

In a recent talk at a high school, Savage went after Christian teens, ranting and raving against their religious beliefs. A number of kids walked out on the talk, and Savage called them "pansy asses".

Savage is moving into a central position in American politics. His name is on the White House website, he is photographed with VP Joe Biden, he writes a syndicated column focusing on gay sex primarily. He is on MTV, spewing his comments over the screen to whoever will listen.

This guy must be shown up for what he is: a man full of hate towards those with traditional moral principles, a man who has nothing but vitriol in his vocabulary. This is not the kind of man who should be on any media outlet. We don't want any of the lies and hate that he is handing out.

You can listen to an audio tape of Ben Shapiro who is taking on this man to expose him. Be informed, be warned of what is coming at us. This guy is being used by the Obama administration to head up their anti-bullying campaign, called It Gets Better. It is important that people object to what this guy is giving out and pressure must be brought to bear on the Obama administration to get rid of this guy.

A google search comes up with a post by this guy in my local lefty newspaper, The Coast, counseling boys/men on appropriate boyfriends. So he is a Dear Abby for homosexuals, but he has a foul mouth while he is at it.

This is a video showing the kind of bullying and "vile" stuff that this guy Savage spews at the younger generation. Dan Savage bullying talk
Warning: the language and descriptions are obscene. So this is the guy that the Obama administration has selected to head up an anti-bullying campaign. One has to wonder about their choice and their motives in doing this.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

This week, Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative member of Parliament, introduced a private member's motion calling for a study of when life begins.

Woodworth's motion directs that a committee of the House be struck to examine the definition of a human being in the Criminal Code. Section 223 of the code states that a "child becomes a human being" when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother. " If Woodworth's motion were to pass, a House committee would be charged with examining "what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth," and the legal and legislative consequences of such a determination.
- Father Raymond de Souza

This seemingly innocuous motion has caused a firestorm of reaction, from Justice Minister Robert Nicholson who condemned the motion back in February to Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who states that women's rights trump those of the fetus. On my own blog, a commenter invokes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to state that I cannnot question the right to abortion since women have autonomy over their own bodies.

That's exactly what Woodworth is asking for: a definition of the status of the unborn, given the data of modern science. After all, most people who have read anything about pregnancy, know that the child in the womb has its own body. It is residing within and dependent upon the mother for its nutrition and a safe place in which to grow. But that does not mean the child is part of the mother's body. In fact, its unique DNA, its own sexuality (half the time, different from its mother's), all indicate that this child has its own body and is its own person. In fact, all the changes within the mother's body during pregnancy are dictated by the child she is carrying, not by her own biology. That fact puts into question the autonomy of the mother.

The reticence by some to discuss this issue and the outright indignation of others that any debate should be allowed, would seem to indicate that they are afraid of losing ground if science should be brought to bear on the situation. This is why pro-abortion defenders always invoke the rights of the woman and never speak of the rights of the child. They cannot talk about the child, because that would be acknowledging the reality that they are trying to avoid - this is a fellow human being who is being destroyed in an abortion.

Why is Canada so reticent to open the debate on abortion? In 1988, the Senate had a tie vote on the subject of restrictions on abortion and they gave the issue back to the House of Commons, encouraging them to bring in some legislation on the subject. None has ever been brought forth since that time. And now we have a Prime Minister who declares that he will not re-open the debate.

Polls indicate that over 70% of Canadians favour some legislation to restrict abortion (Canada has no restrictions, putting it in the same category as China and North Korea). And another poll shows that 80% of Canadians are unaware that we are devoid of any legislation on abortion in Canada. No other western country is in this position. When pro-choicers state that the issue is settled, they are ignoring the fact that the issue has never been properly dealt with at all in this country.

So, if you like living in a country where the Supreme Court ultimately decides everything, then so be it. But that, to me, is not democracy. If the nine judges of the Supreme Court can decide something as important as who is considered a person, then what else will they decide? If an entire class of human beings have absolutely no protection by law, then all the rest of us are in danger of having the same thing happen to us. Removing protection from one group of persons takes away protection from all of us.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

“You know he’s blind, so the night to him is nothing,” Mr. Ai said the friend told him. “I think that’s a perfect metaphor.”

Among those who helped Mr. Chen was He Peirong, a family friend who said Mr. Chen had planned his escape far in advance, staying in bed for long periods of time to trick guards into thinking he was too sick to walk. In an account she wrote on her microblog early Friday, Ms. He said that Mr. Chen had called her after fleeing the village. She said she then picked him up in her car, and they drove to Beijing. By late morning on Friday, Ms. He had been taken by public security agents from her home in Nanjing, according to Bob Fu, president of China Aid, a Christian rights group in Texas. Her microblog account was later deleted.

China's record of human rights is horrific. Chen Guangcheng was beaten on numerous occasions for his opposition to forced abortion on Chinese women. He has been under house arrest for two years, with guards posted round the clock outside of his house. He and his wife have not been allowed to leave the house even to obtain groceries.

Let us hope that his escape to the US embassy will bring attention to his situation and that his wife and family will be spared the cruelty and torture that one knows comes with dissident action in China.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Brian interviews Joyce Arthur on the opening of the abortion debate in Parliament.

Brian interrupts her immediately to correct the fact that she does not speak for all women. He asks several times if the pro-choice side is afraid of losing the debate if the science enters into the equation.

Arthur stresses that giving the fetus rights means taking rights away from women. But those rights are not equal. "If you give a fetus rights, you have to take away rights from the woman", Arthur states.

If she is going to discuss rights, then they should be equal rights. Taking away the right to life of the fetus is not equal to taking away a woman's right to end her pregnancy. A woman does not lose her life if she carries through a pregnancy; however the fetus dies in every single abortion.

"Do you agree with me that government cannot force certain religious beliefs on its citizens?" Sebelius agreed with him, and when he asked why can government not do that, Sebelius answered because of the Constitution, the separation of church and state.

This morning in a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, HHS Secretary Sebelius was questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on the topic of religious liberty. Specifically, Rep. Gowdy questioned Secretary Sebelius’ statement in her testimony indicating the careful consideration she undertook to “balance” religious liberty protections with preventive services in making the decision about the contraceptive mandate (which includes drugs that can cause abortions).

Rep. Gowdy asked the Secretary about the specifics of her “balance”. In doing so he explained three tests for legal balance, depending on the content and issues being weighed. He explained that because religious liberty is a fundamental right any decision that might violate it would require the strictest scrutiny.

Under oath, the nation’s HHS head stated that in making this decision and taking into consideration religious liberty issues, she relied on the expertise of HHS General Counsel. When questioned further about the counsel she received, the Secretary reported that guidance was provided entirely in discussion, and no legal memo was written on the topic. When asked further about her knowledge of the most significant cases related to religious liberty that have been decided by the Supreme Court, the Secretary responded that she was unaware/unfamiliar with these cases. It is a telling moment.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Last Saturday, I was invited to a prayer meeting/teaching at the home of an evangelical pastor and his wife who have a healing ministry to fellow Christians. There were two talks: the first was a talk on forgiveness, and included the pastor's testimony. This was quite moving. The second talk was by his wife, and it was on the walls we put up to defend ourselves against intimacy. Also good. After the talks, there was time for prayer and people could request to be prayed over. One person asked the question of why does God permit suffering to go on? That age-old question.

I felt the answer was incomplete. There were things said such as God wants to heal but doesn't heal everyone. Perhaps God is permitting your suffering for a time, then he will heal you. I couldn't help thinking of the Catholic saying "offer it up" and I looked up the Scripture passage (which, amazingly, I found right away) and this very passage is quoted in the Lewis' article above.

In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church. - Colossians 1:24

This is, I believe, part of the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. While it is baffling to think that Christ's afflictions might not be complete, because obviously His sufferings were all that was needed for salvation, this gives us the meaning of offering our suffering up for someone else.

I had a personal experience of this just recently. In February, I had hip replacement surgery and I found the recovery quite painful. It was harder than I expected (and it is not over yet). I had a distinct feeling that I should offer it up for someone I know who is struggling with alcoholism. I also felt that I should fast for her twice a week, a real fast such as eating dry toast instead of lunch. I don't know if my sacrifice has had any immediate effect in her life, but somehow offering up pain and the small sacrifice of going without a real lunch was a kind of prayer that reached beyond any words that I could say.

While I think that evangelical Protestants have many things right, I find that in some areas, they are missing some quite wonderful doctrines that we Catholics have in our faith. And the mystical Body of Christ is one of those. There is no ready answer for why we suffer, for why good people experience bad things, but we do have an opportunity to unite our suffering with Our Lord's and He can use it for someone else. It is wonderful to pray for healing, but obviously not every prayer for healing gets answered as such. And that can leave people to doubt their faith or to doubt God's promises. But the doctrine of redemptive suffering, in which we can share with Jesus, gives a meaning to suffering that all the healing prayer in the world just can't touch.

“These words have as it were the value of a final discovery, which is accompanied by joy. For this reason St. Paul writes: ‘Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake.’ The joy comes from the discovery of the meaning of suffering, and this discovery, even if it is most personally shared in by Paul of Tarsus who wrote these words, is at the same time valid for others. The apostle shares his own discovery and rejoices in it because of all those whom it can help — just as it helped him — to understand the salvific meaning of suffering.”
- Charles Lewis, The Catholic Register, April 24, 2012

- Create the Family You Want
A US clinic advertised in a British Columbia publication for sex selection of embryos. Due to objections, the ad has been pulled and the topic of abortion is again bubbling over, instead of staying on that back burner as our PM would like.
John Robson of Sun News Network had some good insights on this and he was interviewed by Krista Erickson today. I am hoping that his comments will be blogged on ByLine but there is nothing up there yet.
As Robson says, this shows the weak link in the whole abortion argument. Even feminists feel uncomfortable with women rejecting female fetuses. But in Canada, aborting a child is the woman's right up to and including the moment of birth for any reason. So it is rather late in the game to say "hold on a minute, abortion for reasons of sex selection are just not right" - in fact, it indicates a real discrimination against women by cultures that value boys more than girls. And feminists are checkmated on this one - they have to continue to defend a woman's right to kill her child at any point for any reason.
Holes are appearing in the pro-abortion defence and they are getting bigger. As a recent blog on LifeSiteNews stated "pro-abortion politicians are science-deniers." And feminists are not really feminists either if they support the choice to kill girls because they are girls.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Wow, this is huge. A priest saying Mass outside an abortion clinic. It reminds me of Bernard Nathanson's saying that if the church had stood its ground back in the 60's and fought hard, legalized abortion would not have happened. He knew the Catholic Church was the real enemy of pro-abortion forces, and that when the Church did not fight hard, the pro-choice side had won. But the Church is fighting back. And "the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

The idea to celebrate the Catholic Mass in front of Planned Parenthood came from Fr. Joseph Hearty, Assistant Pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in nearby Littleton, who felt that it was time to “pull out the big guns.” It was, he told LifeSiteNews, an inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

“If we can pray the rosary, why not offer the Mass, why not use the Mass and the Eucharist as a means of fighting this tragedy,” he said. “Why not use the most powerful means that we have?”

Friday, April 20, 2012

· We pray for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility.”

· We pray for all the staff at abortion clinics around the nation. May they be daily confirmed in the sacred care that they offer women.”

Some of the prayers, like those above, are for the abortionists. Others are for all “women to access . . . abortion,” and one is to “give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.”

Still other prayers are against pro-life advocates. They pray that women on the way to have an abortion would be “shielded” from the lifesaving message of pro-life sidewalk counselors and “give thanks for abortion escorts who guide women safely through the hostile gauntlets of protesters.” In another, “we pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power [of choice, i.e. abortion] by their religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.”

One of the most outrageous of these pro-abortion prayers actually urges people to “pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.” What about the babies who weren’t “chosen”?

All Planned Parenthood and Faith Aloud can do is rationalize the taking of another human’s life under the guise of prayer.

But apparently, these prayers are being used by the entire abortion industry. Faith Aloud even wrote us after we at the ACLJ initially exposed Planned Parenthood’s prayer guide to clarify, “Independent abortion providers (non-Planned Parenthood facilities) have been using these prayers for years.”

I came across this attitudebelief during the second 40 Days for Life vigil here in Halifax. A young woman drove her car very fast up to the curb, got out and shouted "what are you doing here?" She was furious that we were holding a prayer vigil for the end of abortion. She said to me "don't you know the babies go back to heaven and they return in another pregnancy?" I said "no they don't". She repeated it louder and I again replied "no they don't". At this point, she shook her fist at me and said "the spirit world is going to know about this". There is a real element of the demonic in abortion and I don't doubt that there are some curses being cast on pro-lifers. All the more proof that this battle is a spiritual one.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

But a growing body of research is stoking fears that the practice may have migrated to Canada. On Monday, a newly-released St. Michael’s Hospital study found “concerning trends” to suggest female feticide could be happening in South Korean and Indian communities.

The starkest finding was in the category of Indian-born mothers with two previous children. Among their third children, the male-to-female ratio was 136 boys for every 100 girls; by comparison, the children of Canadian-born women have a sex ratio of just 105 boys for every 100 girls.

Six of Toronto's sixteen major hospitals do not reveal the sex of the baby in the womb to mothers who have ultrasounds. All six of these hospitals are located in areas of large South Asian populations.

“Note the paradox that abortion for no reason — because it’s untimely, unplanned, not wanted — that is acceptable. So then we’ve got the paradox that an abortion for no reason (is ok), but abortion for what seems to be a gendered or sex-based reason is not,” said Bernard Dicknes, professor emeritus of health policy at the University of Toronto.

As Ezra Levant said, this is the Achilles heel of the feminist pro-abortion position.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, 51 percent of American households pay no federal income tax. They may pay some taxes on gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol—and they pay their Social Security contributions. But the majority of Americans do not pay any of the taxes that fund our national priorities—national defense, homeland security, welfare, education, foreign aid, and so forth.

America is drowning in debt. Taxpayers are demanding fiscal responsibility—but our leaders won't listen. What's the solution? This may sound like a radical idea, but our fiscal emergency demands radical intervention: Only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Only those with "skin in the game" should be allowed to choose our representatives.

Some critics would say that this idea is an attack on the poor. Nonsense. I would disallow the non-taxpayingrich from voting as well—and from buying influence through lobbying. There are more non-taxpaying rich Americans than you might suppose—such as L.A. Dodgers owner Frank H. McCourt Jr., a multimillionaire who paid no federal or state income taxes from 2003 to 2008, according to the Los Angeles Times.

There are those who would argue that everyone should have a right to vote—it's only fair! But is it fair for one group of citizens to vote to take the private property of other citizens? Is it fair for the beggar to vote himself a steak and lobster dinner at his neighbor's expense?

To those who still think this idea is unfair, let me pose this question: Are you seriously telling me that 51 percent of Americans are poverty-stricken? Almost 90 percent of American households subscribe to cable or dish TV services. If they can afford hundreds of dollars per year for entertainment, they can certainly afford to become shareholders in our republic.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Sunday, April 15, 2012

In the 1970s … the fetus … stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women’s bodies to the ‘who decides’ question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.

Some pro-life campaigners have long believed that we could win this battle if we could shift the debate beyond “choice” and force consideration of “what’s being chosen.”

In recent years, the anti-abortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion.

Our pictures prove that opposition to abortion is responsible and humane -- and that support for abortion is radical and extreme.

One of our most effective visualization tactics has been our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). It involves the outdoor display of large photo panels which compare pictures of aborted babies with pictures of victims of more widely recognized forms of genocide.

Five years after CBR’s 1998 launch of GAP, the world’s first large-scale abortion photo outreach to students, the New York Times, in their March 30, 2003 issue, reported an amazingly pro-life opinion shift among U.S. college students. The article was headlined “Surprise Mom: I'm Anti-Abortion,” and it described “… a trend noted in polls: [T]hat teenagers and college-age Americans are more conservative about abortion rights than their counterparts were a generation ago.” The numbers were striking and the article said the “… most commonly cited reason for the increasingly conservative views of young people is their receptiveness to the way anti-abortion campaigners have reframed the national debate on the contentious topic, shifting the emphasis from a woman's rights to the rights of the fetus.” It was CBR’s horrifying photos which “shifted the emphasis.”

This weekend, we have Ruth Lobo Shaw staying with us. Ruth is one of the Carleton University students who was arrested last fall for attempting to put up a GAP display on campus. The pro-life group did not succeed in putting up the images, because campus security called the Ottawa police and they were arrested and charged with an offense against the student union. The charge was dismissed without a court appearance, as the police realised it was ridiculous to charge students who have a right to free speech on their own campus.

A more quiet and non-confrontational young woman you could not meet. And physically definitely not imposing. Ruth is all of five feet all, and she is also five months pregnant. Pretty compelling witness she gives because she can now use her own ultrasound to show the personhood of her own baby.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Marquardt's work (Between Two Worlds, The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, New York, Crown Books 2005) among that of many others brings us to the moral core of the sexual revolution: the abundant evidence that its fruits have been rottenest for women and children. Even people who pride themselves on politically correct compassion, who criticize conservatives and religious believers for their supposed lack of feeling fail to see the contradiction between their public professions of compassion in other matters and their private adherence to a liberationist ethic.

This resolute refusal to recognize that the revolution falls heaviest on the youngest and most vulnerable shoulders - beginning with the fetus and proceeding up through children and adolescents - is perhaps the most vivid example of the denial surrounding the fallout of the sexual revolution. In no other realm of human life do ordinary Americans seem so indifferent to the particular suffering of the smallest and weakest... People who in any other context would pride themselves on defending the underdog forget just who that underdog is when the subject is the sexual revolution.

Reminds me of the pithy statement by P.D. James in the preface to her autobiography:

The sexual liberation of adults has been bought at a high price and it is not the adults who have paid it.

So often this happens. People who object to the pro-life message actually bring more attention to the issue with their actions.

In northern Kentucky, a pro-life group put up a display of baby clothes on a clothes line, with every 4th item marked with a big red X. This was to signify the fact that every 4th baby is aborted. A quiet display, no graphic images, but the message is shown that abortion is eliminating 1/4 of our next generation.

The vandals were caught and charged with "criminal mischief" and now the issue of abortion is being more discussed on this campus than previously.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Consider a moment of clarity from my own experience. In Governor John Engler's first few months in office in 1991 he pushed to eliminate a state program called General Assistance (GA). It was a welfare program for the able-bodied. Engler was eventually successful, and today many Michiganians would not even remember there was such a program. But in those days the debate was fierce.

I was on leave from Hillsdale College at the time to serve as Deputy State Treasurer for Taxation and Economic Policy, and as such was with the governor at an event at the Detroit Athletic Club. After the speech, Engler was interviewed by a reporter from The Economist magazine.

"Governor, what are you going to say to the Michigan people when the first person who no longer gets General Assistance freezes to death?"asked the reporter.

My reaction was: "Gee, governor, what are you going to say?"
But Engler's answer was right on point. "I will ask where this person's family was?" he replied.

Remember, a couple of summers ago, when there was a heat wave in France? and hundreds of elderly people died in their apartments. The reason? no one checked on them. Their children were all off vacationing and no one called to see if they were okay. How our hearts grow cold.

The corpse of Christ is a shocking image, but one which we need to see–much as we need to see Gibson’s Passion, and just as we need to see the starved victims of Auschwitz, the dismembered remains of aborted babies or the dead babies thrown in the trash. We need to see the starving children of Africa and the emaciated faces of crackheads and drunks and homeless people.

On March 17, 2012, 39 young women, representing one person for each year of legalized abortion in America, set out to walk nearly 250 miles of open road for a 21-day journey from the nation's largest abortuary located in Houston,TX, to the federal courthouse in Dallas, TX where Roe v Wade was born.

Obama has said that he hopes the Supreme Court will not overturn Obamacare since it passed Congress and is a constitutional law. But that is precisely what the Supreme Court has been doing for the past 200 years. And, as for whether Obamacare is a constitutional law, someone needs to refresh Obama on his law knowledge; Obamacare did not pass with a huge majority in Congress and many experts have stated that it is Obama who has gone against the Constitution. He is a slippery devil.

One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.

But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.

He is also counting on something else -- namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.

One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well.

It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama's lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Photo of baby's head and arm submerged in a bucket of water after mother was induced to labour. Baby was full term and even cried at birth.

“These violent procedures can happen up to the ninth month of pregnancy,” Littlejohn told LifeSiteNews.com. “Sometimes the women themselves die along with their full term babies. Forced abortion is China’s war against women. It is official government rape.”
- LifeSiteNews

Perhaps the circulation of this photo will make people everywhere realise that abortion takes a life in every single case. This baby is just larger and more developed.

Why do African-Americans, 12.6 percent of the nation’s population, account for 50 percent of the murder victims? Because fatherlessness is most pervasive among blacks.

The illegitimacy rate among all Americans has been rising for decades. In 2012, we reached a grim milestone: The majority of births to women under the age of 30 are now outside of marriage. Among blacks, 72 percent of births are to unmarried women. And while some unmarried mothers go on to marry the fathers of their babies, it’s rare in the African-American community, where only 31 percent of couples are married (in 1960, it was 61 percent).

The result of this adult folly is chaos, misery, and often violent death for kids. Why do young males join gangs? Because without a father to guide and protect them, they seek physical protection from human predators as well as ratification of their masculinity from the gang. A counselor at a juvenile detention facility in California told the Patriot Post, “[If] you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I’d like to meet him. . . . I don’t think that kid exists.” A full 85 percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, as do 80 percent of rapists, 71 percent of high-school drop-outs, and 63 percent of teen suicides.
- Violence and Family Breakdown, by Mona Charen

As well-meaning as single mothers are, the deck is stacked against them. One of the clerks at my local grocery store is a young black woman, with three children, all of whom have different fathers. She is living with her children and the current boyfriend is there from time to time. She relates the problems she is having with her oldest son, who is suspended from school on a regular basis, and this then makes her skip off work. The problem compounds, and it will only get worse with her next two children, the last of which is a girl destined to repeat her mother's life.

How do you help these folks to get out of this situation? Education is key. If Paula had more than a couple of years high school, she would have a better job, she would meet a better man, but the most important thing of all, she might actually be married to the father of her children.

This all makes it sound as if, once again, the plan of the future lies with the persistence of women to work towards a better life. But, in actual fact, all the hard work and dedication will not yield much if the men don't change. So it is up to black men to pull up their pants literally, stop being caricatures of their race, get their heads out of the drugs and porn, study and work. Become real men in other words.

I have read that when the proportion of the population that is Muslim reaches 20%, there is no turning-back. The extremists will push their ideology and, because of their fierce allegiance to radical Islam, those in their way will be crushed.

I have read that this is happening in some cities in Europe and it is also happening in England. It is not well reported over here in the west, we should be paying more attention. The call for Sharia law to be used in court decisions has already come up, and our judges need to resist this.

Immigrants must adhere to the laws of the land to which they emigrate. Period.